Trudeau can put some bums in some seats. That is definitely a political asset. He seems to have the savvy to attract a team that's full of ideas. Give him credit. Can he build an organization, etc.? We can't judge this, except he seems to be doing it fairly well right now.

Who cares?
If the Liberals wanted a leader they would have begged and pleaded with Robert Ghiz, Gary Doer, or some other Liberal or Ideological Liberal (in Doers case) who is avoiding the Federal party till the dust settles.

He puts bums in seats;
That is ultimately for a party sitting with 36 seats (35 elected) all that matters.

Does he have ideas?
Does that really matter? Layton had thousands of them each one a fantasy more outlandish then the next but it got his party over 100 seats.

There is a firm group of Canadians who simply will not support Harper, most of them in Quebec this selection of JT has nothing to do with Vision, Leadership, Love or Unicorns it has to do with rebuilding a party from ash.

You look at the collection of bodies running for the LPC leadership and which one of them leads the LPC passed the NDP? Forget about governance how about just finishing second again?

Maybe Martin Cauchon? Aside from that its pretty well just JT.

Bugs wrote:

But what about his character? He is obviously not a 'bad man' but does he have the strength of character that would be required? He seems kind of feckless ...actually, I think it's this aimlessness that gives people the impression that he's an air-head. Does he have any of that 'just-watch-me' toughness of Trudeau pere? Does he have any real goals he wants to achieve?

No, he isn't the brightest crayon in the box.
However we just watch a "rockstar" with little in terms of qualifications just get elected and re-elected President a few miles South.

This is solely about beating the NDP, and hoping that Justin grows up over the course of six years and if he doesnt by that time you will have a Liberal caucus large enough with enough new attracted talent to pick someone who is up for the job.

The party needs new blood and he will attract that blood.

Bugs wrote:

We are back at the old 'political realism' argument which you counter-pose to 'integrity'. Cosmo makes too much of his case ... it seems to me the Liberals went to Dion because of Kennedy's convention antics ... and the reluctance, on some people's part, to pick a prominent New Democrat as the next Liberal leader. And Ignatieff didn't even face an election. His was a case of opportunism

Dion had the momentum going into day two, the green scarf army was in full effect on the second day of the convention and he was the one who benefited the most from the second ballot.

The beautiful thing about the way the Liberals run their leadership selection is that if I am a delegate of candidate X, and he endorses candidate Y, I can just go and vote for candidate Z

Dion was elected because a majority of delegates on the floor voted for him, I think marginalizing it by saying it was all Kennedy is interesting but not exactly a reality 50% +1 of the delegates needed to walk into those booths and opt for Dion.

Bugs wrote:

They weren't going for 'integrity' at the time. They were trying to get away from the stink of ADSCAM.

And elected an MP from Quebec who was a sitting MP during the entire Adscam situation to do so?

Dion was elected because he was really the only guy who had a vision,
And while Green-Shift and all that Enviro non-sense didn't appeal to me it certainly did unify the Liberals around him at least till he lost.

Bugs wrote:

But put that aside -- what is 'political realism' for the Liberal party, going forward?

Is it to revive the elements of Trudeau-ism -- possibly including separatism -- and to look for someone with rock-star charisma to lead them back, motivating the young with head-in-the-clouds idealism(s)?

Money.
You cant beat the CPC when they are out fundraising you 4:1

Dion and Iggy were both blasted by attack ads at a rate of 6:1 compared to LPC ads against Harper, basically turning the Liberals 2000/ 2004 campaign tactic against them.

I don't think there is a big poster up at LPC headquarters with PET on it, I think its really much more simple then that.

The NDP bump didnt go away.
We are more then two years removed and they are still in the high 20's nationally and leading in Quebec.

JT wins you the majority of Quebec on name alone.
There simply isnt anyone else on the ballot that can do that for the party.

Bugs wrote:

Personally, I think that's a fantasy. That's how they did it 45 years ago, when the first wave of baby-boomers began to vote. It's not likely in a country where the first wave of boomers are retiring, and looking forward to enjoying all those benefits that Trudeau pere promised them.

But what else do they have, that they can (mostly) agree on, and which is do-able?

Quebec is largely those head-in-the-cloud idealists you mentioned earlier.
They have decided that Harper is the devil and will vote against him no matter what, NDP support is soft, and the BQ doesn't even have a leader who sits in Parliament.

The goal is as it should be to go after the lowest hanging fruit possible, the CPC attack machine will need to split its attentions on Mulcair and JT allowing a battle for a Province the CPC doesnt need to occur.

OK, but I think we fundamentally agree, Cosmo ... However, Warren Kinsella is smirking.

Quote:

Harper has ... had little to fear from Mulcair. The ruling Conservatives seem listless and drifting, but they have remained at the top of public opinion polls for much of Mulcair’s tenure as leader of the NDP. The prime ministerial cat, Stanley, lately seems more relevant than the leader of the opposition.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are leaderless, and located in a distant perch in the House of Commons.

But the Grits generate more ink and more interest than Mulcair’s gaggle of former bartenders and golf course employees.

Justin Trudeau, the likely winner of the Liberal leadership contest, is a human ATM, raking in cash and looking like a winner.

Mulcair doesn’t look like a winner. His problem is that he is not Jack Layton. The much-loved, deceased NDP icon was everything Mulcair is not: Smiling, positive, likeable and energetic.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2013.....-invisible

Apparently Justin is doing OK in the contributions department.

Personally, I haven't seen the character of a statesman in Trudeau, but I can't eliminate the possibility. He can attract a crowd. You say it doesn't matter.

He could be dangerous. You say that his candidacy is all about Quebec, and I can see that. But can you imagine the 'bidding war' as Mulcair and Trudeau attempt to herd the lobsters into the pot?

This is the noise that helps us ignore the possibiity that we're on the edge of an economic disaster unfolding. We do, after all, have to face four more years of Obama who seems to be driving the American economy over the cliff.

In Paul Martin and Stephane Dion the Liberals had two leaders that were better qualified then Harper to be Prime Minister, yet because of their long time in office, scandal and then Dion's inability to get past all that and connect with voters both lost at the ballot box. Ignatieff had an impressive resume I guess but I think the idea of him as leader was a joke, as did most Canadians.

My point being is that the Liberals had talented, well accomplished leaders recently and it didn't work. Trudeau might be weak when it comes to substance but he's exciting. Liberals, and politics in general, could use some excitement and he's the person to do it at the moment.

There are definitely better candidates then Trudeau in the leadership race but what exactly can they do? Martha Hall Findlay could very well catch on with Canadians if she won the leadership, but the Liberals aren't willing to take that risk with an election just over two years away. The same applies with Marc Garneau, as for the rest of the crop they seem useless. Martin Cauchon waited to long and the rest are nobodies.

In Paul Martin and Stephane Dion the Liberals had two leaders that were better qualified then Harper to be Prime Minister, yet because of their long time in office, scandal and then Dion's inability to get past all that and connect with voters both lost at the ballot box. Ignatieff had an impressive resume I guess but I think the idea of him as leader was a joke, as did most Canadians.

I actually agree with the Martin and to an extent Dion in the sense that I agree that Dion was a better politician, as for leader...that's a hard sell because Harper won.

Where Dion went wrong was hitching his wagon to Kyoto and being the "Green" candidate. It was one thing to get elected as leader that way, however making Green Shift a central campaign plank which was complicated and cumbersome allowing the CPC to define it in the public eye was his undoing.

Also; his English was terrible, he came off weak sounding when he attempted to debate in English and Duceppe made him look like an ass in French.

However, I do agree that he had the chops to lead he just secured terrible terrible advice from those within the party tried to stay in his comfort zone far too log.

In terms of who was the better backroom politician I would agree Dion,
But Harper had a far far superior platform in 2008, which was much easier to sell.

Progressive Tory wrote:

My point being is that the Liberals had talented, well accomplished leaders recently and it didn't work. Trudeau might be weak when it comes to substance but he's exciting. Liberals, and politics in general, could use some excitement and he's the person to do it at the moment.

There are definitely better candidates then Trudeau in the leadership race but what exactly can they do? Martha Hall Findlay could very well catch on with Canadians if she won the leadership, but the Liberals aren't willing to take that risk with an election just over two years away. The same applies with Marc Garneau, as for the rest of the crop they seem useless. Martin Cauchon waited to long and the rest are nobodies.

The CPC has the money, time, and research teams to be able to define any Liberal leader in whatever light they see fit before the first Pro-Liberal ad is even filmed.

The Tories didnt have to smack Bob Rae, but they did so because they could.

The LPC has to consider that any no name that they run will become a name very quickly because the CPC will assure that they control the agenda of this new leader.

Trudeau because of the name and the excitement he evokes MAY be able to repeal some of that, or he could go down in a flaming Hindenburg-esk heap once the "faux pas" of his pre-political years come to light and my understand is there are many.

The NDP and CPC are working full time to assure he is definable.

The hope amongst the Liberal brass is that Quebec won't care vote for him anyway, and after four years in opposition JT may benefit from what we now refer to as the "Harper Effect" after years and years of every attack under the sun Canadians are generally apathetic to the attacks and smears.

OK, but I think we fundamentally agree, Cosmo ... However, Warren Kinsella is smirking.

Quote:

Harper has ... had little to fear from Mulcair. The ruling Conservatives seem listless and drifting, but they have remained at the top of public opinion polls for much of Mulcair’s tenure as leader of the NDP. The prime ministerial cat, Stanley, lately seems more relevant than the leader of the opposition.

The Liberals, meanwhile, are leaderless, and located in a distant perch in the House of Commons.

But the Grits generate more ink and more interest than Mulcair’s gaggle of former bartenders and golf course employees.

Justin Trudeau, the likely winner of the Liberal leadership contest, is a human ATM, raking in cash and looking like a winner.

Mulcair doesn’t look like a winner. His problem is that he is not Jack Layton. The much-loved, deceased NDP icon was everything Mulcair is not: Smiling, positive, likeable and energetic.
http://www.calgarysun.com/2013.....-invisible

Apparently Justin is doing OK in the contributions department.

Personally, I haven't seen the character of a statesman in Trudeau, but I can't eliminate the possibility. He can attract a crowd. You say it doesn't matter.

He could be dangerous. You say that his candidacy is all about Quebec, and I can see that. But can you imagine the 'bidding war' as Mulcair and Trudeau attempt to herd the lobsters into the pot?

This is the noise that helps us ignore the possibiity that we're on the edge of an economic disaster unfolding. We do, after all, have to face four more years of Obama who seems to be driving the American economy over the cliff.

Warren does what Warren does; I fully expect him to trumpet the benefits of a JT led Liberal Party, I have even done so myself.

What the Liberals flocking to Trudeau don't understand is the counter-effect of having a man-child as leader.

In the 2011 Election 65% of Canadians voted for a grown up as leader;
Be it Harper, Iggy, or Duceppe.

The balance opted for the theatrics of Jack Layton or Liz May.

Hardcore LPC voters have held on based on leaders like Martin, Dion, and Iggy.
Does a guy like Justin who excites the Layton vote of 2011 in 2015 not have some counterbalance of support lost on the other-side of the spectrum?

I think Mulcair is what the leader of a nation could look like in terms of his resume, his demeanor, and the way he handles his caucus (with an iron fist), the problem with Mulcair is his caucus of inexperience.

Justin hasn't shown me he as the means to stand up to Mulcair when pressed on a televised debate, the only challenge he as received so far is from Joyce Murray who made JT look like an unprepared, inexperienced, canned rhetoric spewing dunce.

What's going to happen when in French Pallie and Mulcair are going to hammer him on the Clarity Act, Sovereignty, and the sins of his Father? Then the next night having Harper hammer him for those answer in English.

There are A LOT of benefits to Justin,

But the NDP opted for Mulcair for a reason the question is will they be able to utlize him as the grown-up option, I think with two years of Justin leading the LPC its possible but it really depends on if the NDP decides to Kamikaze themselves and continue going after Harper (and votes who are not likely to vote NDP anyway) or start to turn the barrels at the Liberals.

Justin hasn't shown me he as the means to stand up to Mulcair when pressed on a televised debate, the only challenge he as received so far is from Joyce Murray who made JT look like an unprepared, inexperienced, canned rhetoric spewing dunce.

What's going to happen when in French Pallie and Mulcair are going to hammer him on the Clarity Act, Sovereignty, and the sins of his Father? Then the next night having Harper hammer him for those answer in English.

There are A LOT of benefits to Justin,

But the NDP opted for Mulcair for a reason the question is will they be able to utlize him as the grown-up option, I think with two years of Justin leading the LPC its possible but it really depends on if the NDP decides to Kamikaze themselves and continue going after Harper (and votes who are not likely to vote NDP anyway) or start to turn the barrels at the Liberals.

It all depends on how good Trudeau is, doesn't it? I agree, however. He isn't likely to stand up to histrionics of Mulcair. But how much does he have to defend?

Think of how well he has worked the media, for example. That boxing bit was a masterpiece. He sucked us all in -- what tax-paying conservative would deny himself the sinful pleasure of seeing Trudeau fils pounded to a pulp? We chuckled at his skinny arms ... we imagined his big bobble-head being used as a speed-bag in some grotty gym over top of a chop shop on an industrial street.

He pulled it off with panache. Can you say begrudging respect?

Look at how he's being cake-walked to his coronation. I mean, wow. He has an excellent management team, that's all I can say.

And you forget ... the current output of our university system are branded. They are called 'Millennials', and they are the most impractical generation of high-esteem dreamers that we have ever produced. It looks like this is the demographic that Justin Sinclair Trudeau means to represent.

I can understand totally why he's the Conservative candidate in the Liberal leadership race.

And you forget ... the current output of our university system are branded. They are called 'Millennials', and they are the most impractical generation of high-esteem dreamers that we have ever produced. It looks like this is the demographic that Justin Sinclair Trudeau means to represent.

I can understand totally why he's the Conservative candidate in the Liberal leadership race.

In October election always hurts University Student vote;
Many of those kids are registered in their home ridings and even back when I was a student its not like many of them made the trek back home to vote.

I would also argue that while Trudeau will not doubt be popular amongst University students, people tend to forget that Iggy was a rock-star amongst them even before he offered to cut all hard done by history majors a cheque as part of his election platform.

Student's don't donate, Student's rarely vote, they are however very effective at tweeting their displeasure from their sofa's.

The CPC has always done poorly on campus' yet as every population of grads grow up, gets jobs and starts paying taxes its amazing how quickly the shift occurs.

Trudeau will fill the void that Jack Layton left amongst the youth, the question really becomes what happens to the smug Chrétien loyalist's who stuck with the party even through Iggy because Layton and the NDP were too "out there" ?

I do agree that JT should not be underestimated.
The media has done a VERY effective job at lowering his expectation, and anything short of falling off the stage when he wins Liberal Leadership will be seen as a "victory".

Many fell Joyce Murray is gaining some serious momentum. I don't know if it was done on purpose to try and show a gain of momentum for her but she has received some fairly big endorsements in the last little while. If some of these electoral reform organizations could actually get their members to vote for her it could have a real impact, but getting them to vote is easier said than done. I think the possibility of her over taking Martha Hall Findlay is very likely, especially considering MHFs not so great leadership run.

It will also be interesting to see if she remains in the LPC, I wouldn't be surprised to see Murray join Elizabeth May and the Greens.

Part of me wonders how much of the Joyce Murray Momentum discussion is simply out there to counter a lot of the opinion pieces that feel that this Liberal Leadership Election is nothing more then a Coronation.

I still think that JT takes this on the first ballot, and should it go to a second ballot it will be by the slimmest of margins.

What I have found very odd over the last few weeks is the Murray supporters call for cooperation amongst the NDP and GPC,

The NDP has made it pretty clear they have no interest in merging with the Liberals, and I don't suspect that conversation is even had unless the NDP gets crushed in 2015, yet there is this grand fantasy that the "natural governing party" will combine its efforts with the NDP under a Murray led LPC?

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum